If I knew, I would have not invited him.

Consider a case where the candidate with whom we already met in our company seems suitable for the position. It is important to realize that if a candidate has met us and is still available, 95 % of the time this means that the candidate has been considered for some other positions and failed. It is important to know what position he was being considered for but more importantly the reasons for the rejection and its phases. With this information we are able to save our and the client´s time.

Has anyone interviewed him or do I have to interview him?

If you track the entire course of the selection process we are able to identify at what stage the candidate was rejected. If we have a similar position in the casting history it can be spread in the reverse procedure like this:

1. Candidate considered, not denied but another candidate selected – the ideal situation to send a candidate to the next position

2. Applicant rejected after visiting a client – a compelling CV but a candidate probably failed in some of the additional skills needed

3. Applicant rejected after sending CV – consultant recognized as a suitable profile but not the client

4. Applicant rejected after a personal interview – the highest risk group, the candidate did not convince the consultant

Up to this point the candidates are in the Quick-in category. The applicant is interviewed, usually the evaluation is prepared and therefore after the short conversation a candidate is ready to be sent to the client. The processing time of a candidate is radically reduced by this way.

5. Applicant provides us with their CV

6. Applicant expresses the interest in the position

7. Applicant is contacted

8. Applicant is assigned to the position by a consultant

These points already indicate a problem from the side of the interested applicant about the position/collaboration and also from the side of the content of his biography in relation to the position.

We are looking for promising young candidate with 10 years experience in the field.

When searching for a candidate the ideal way is to first assign the applicants from group 1 to 4 and only move them to other groups. The best way it to use time limitation because the assessment of each candidate has its time limit. If we file this information in relation to the individual positions then one can easily find out who interviewed the candidate and who would be best to ask about its possible relevance to our position. At the same time we see this criterion beneficial to reduce the initial set of candidates and streamline the overall search.